"On March 22nd, 1972, the Supreme Court undermined the boundaries and benefits of marriage. In the decision Eisenstadt v. Baird, the Court struck down a Massachusetts law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people, and implicitly sanctioned unmarried non-procreative sexual intimacy."
And how exactly is that a bad thing...? I'm no constitutional scholar, but I seem to remember reading that a law is required to have a secular purpose and a rational basis to be constitutional. By de facto punishing people (including non-religious people) for not obeying religious prohibition on pre-marital sex, this Massachusetts law was making the state into an enforcer of the church, a big First Amendment no-no. It also constituted an unwarranted intrusion of the state in the private life of its citizens, and served no legitimate interest of the state. Actually, it even worked against said interests, since it would lead to higher rates of STD and unwanted pregnancies, which in turn would lead to public health problems, poverty, child neglect, etc.
"While the decision may seem archaic and insignificant by modern sexual standards, Eisenstadt v. Baird dealt a decisive blow to the legal and cultural norm that marriage was the institution for the full expression of the sexual relationship between man and woman. The decision and its legal consequences affect us today. Forty years ago, the Court ruled that unmarried couples could not be denied their birth control. Today, the Federal government is forcing us to share the cost, for said contraception and some states are giving marital status to homosexual relationships."
Once again, how is that supposed to be a bad thing? There is no rational basis to restrict sex to married people or to deny gays the right to marry. As a matter of facts, it is arguably better to have some sexual experience before marriage. As for your "baaaaaaaaw, the evil government is forcing us to pay for other people's contraception" whining, you do realize that people pay premiums to insurance companies for their health insurance, don't you? So in the end, they pay for their own contraception. Plus, even if you were right, you have to realize that paying for one impoverished woman's contraception is a lot cheaper than paying welfare for the half-dozen kids she may end up with without contraception...
